TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the order bearing No.F.No.CC-1/Tech- I/119(2)(b)/46A/2010-11/2245 dated 19.3.2013 passed by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-K. 2. It is the case of the petitioner - Society that it has filed return of income on 31.10.2007 for the assessment year 2007-08 declaring a total income of Rs. 86,33,892/- and paid a tax of Rs. 27,93,270/- and on 18.2.2009 the return was processed by the 1st respondent under the provisions of Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act ('Act' for short), accepting the returns. On 22.2.2010 revised return was filed declaring Nil income and claiming deduction under the provisions of Section 80P of the I.T. Act and on 14.6.2010 an application was filed for condonation of delay in filing the revised return. 3. It is furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t writ petition is filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri Seshachala, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the application for condonation of delay and the revision petition is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 5.2.2014 made in ITA No.5006/2013 held that when the status of the assessee is a Co-operative society and is not a Cooperative bank, the order passed by the Assessing Authority extending the benefit of exemption from payment of tax under the provisions of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is correct. There is no d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter of appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 9958/2015 and therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for exemption under Section 80(P) of the Income Tax Act. It is also not in dispute that the Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 5.2.2014 passed in ITA No.5006/2013 while considering the earlier petition filed by the very petitioner against the order dated 25.3.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 264 of the Act for the years 2007-08 and 2008- 09 allowed the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respect of very petitioner, has granted exemption from payment of tax. In all fairness, the Commissioner while passing the impugned order ought not to have rejected the application for condonation of delay as well as revision petition. It is also not in dispute that when the Commissioner himself has granted exemption to subsequent years to the very petitioner and the Board's Instruction No.13/2006 dated 22.12.2006 clearly depicts that up to six years application for refund can be entertained, but in the present case it is only two years. Therefore, the Commissioner for Income Tax ought to have proceeded to condone the delay and decide the revision petition on merits relying upon the dictum of this Court in the case of CIT -vs- Sri Biluru Gu....